Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPacket, Planning Commission PLANNER 6/19/2007 ~ MEMORANDUM CITY OF SPRINGFIELD DATE OF HEARING: June 191h, 2007 TO: Springfield Planning Commission \J\.\\'\ FROM: David Reesor, Planner IW'j.:::"l2- SUBJECT: Request for a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment, Case No. LRP2007, 00013 and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment, Case No, ZON2007-00012 PLANNING COMMISSION TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM ISSUE: The Planning Commission is asked to decide whether or not to approve a request for a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment based upon information submitted into the record. DISCUSSION: During the June 51h, 2007 hearing, the Planning Commission received testimony from one citizen, Nancy Falk, who testified in opposition to the proposal. During her testimony, Ms. Falk requested that the record be left open for seven days. The Planning Commission granted the request and instructed Staff to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 12'h, 2007. The Applicant agreed to provide a rebuttal statement to any new written testimony by June 131h, 2007. Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner, on June 12'h, 2007. A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter was then submitted by the applicant the following day, June 131h, 2007. Both letters were received within the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 51h, 2007. Staff's response and excerpts from Ms. Segel's letter and the applicant's rebuttal letter have been provided in the attached report in order to summarize the issues and to provide ease of review by the Planning Commission. Copies of the two letters in their entirety are attached for reference and review in addition to the excerpts and Staff responses in the report, The attached report is provided to supplement the original Staff Report which was provided in the Planning Commission packets for the June 5'h, 2007 hearing. The applicant requests approval of a Metro Plan / Refinement Plan Map Amendment to the East Main Refinement Plan and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. The request involves two. parcels, and is located on approximately 5,24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17,02-32,00, Specifically, the applicant proposes to change Metro Plan designation from Light Medium Industrial (LMI) to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. The applicant seeks approval of this Metro Plan / Refinement Plan amendment and zone change in order to facilitate development of a future Medical Office building on the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with one condition of approval related to Goal 12 (Transportation) compliance based on findings contained in the attached Staff Report. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the attached Order and forward the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment (LRP2007-00011) and Zoning Map Amendment Application (ZON2007,00011) to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Staff Response to written comments I ! Attachment 2: Letter from Lauri Segel, Goal One Coalition Plamfe R ' , (., ;q fJ7 Attachment 3: Letter of rebuttal from Applicant PI ~celVed , , Attachment 4: Planning Commission Final Order anner. DR ( ,\ 7- ') ;Jft,;'~/ Staff Response to written comments to Applications ZON 2007-00012 / LRP2007-00013 SPRINGPIELD .~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff received one written testimony from Lauri Segel, Goal One Coalition Planner, on June 12th, 2007, A written rebuttal to Ms. Segel's letter was then submitted by the . applicant the following day, June 13th, 2007. Both letters v.:ere received within the specified deadlines as noted in the Planning Commission public hearing on June 5th, 2007. Excerpts from Ms, Segel's letter and the applicant's rebuttal letter have been provided in this report (in italics) in order to summarize the issues 'and to provide ease of review by the Planning Commission. Copies of the ~o letters in their entirety are attached for reference and review in: addition to the excerpts and Staff responses in this report. .. Ms. Sel!el's Submittal- Issue #t: "Applicant Relies heavily on the acknowledged 2000 Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS), which does not address the entire Metro VGS area, and is 'not a refinement plan of the Metro Plan... The proposed findings rely on reports and other documents containing inventories, assumptions, and data that have'not been establishedfor the entire Metro VGS area, but rather only for the Springfield portion of the VGS area ..., " Aoolicant's Rebuttal: "The cities of Eugene and Springfield have separately adopted and acknowledged commercial lands studiesjUljilling the requirements of Goal 9, As such, the SCLS serves as the City of Springfield's "most recent economic opportunities analysis, " as Ms. Segal notes above by her own admission... There is no requirement that the Applicant or the City perform a metro-wide analysis of commercial lands in order to adopt findings satisfYing compliance with Metro Plan policies and Goal 9... " . ' ST AFF RESPONSE: The SCLS was a Period Review Task required by DLCD and was approved by said agency as part of Springfield's compliance with Goal 9 during the Periodic Review process. As such, it is a valid document to reference related to this Post Acknowledgement Plan Amendment (PAPA) proposal. The SCLS was adopted by Resolution No. 00-13 as the "policy document guiding the provision of commercial lands within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary." The SCLS was reviewed by DLCD and found to be consistent with the Periodic Review Order and' Statewide Planning Goals. The SCLS was not adopted as a specific amendment to the Metro Plan. The City undertook a supply and demand analysis to determine if there was adequate commercial land in the adopted inventory to accommodate projected demand and, based on these co'nclusions, identify what the City could do to address these conclusions. Chapter 4 of the SCLS, which includes policies and implementation strategies, all recommended actions are already in the Metro Plan or TransPlan; are a recommendation to amend the Code; or are suggestions to improve business practices. The City and DLCD concluded ATTACHMENT 1-1 I. it was not necessary to adopt the SCLS as an amendment to the Metro Plan because all recommendations regarding inventory adjustments contained in the Study cO).lldbe implemented through the PAPA process as increases in the commercial lands inventory; the SCLS would be used at that time'as part of the findings, reasons and conclusions for those PAPA actions. ' Best available data was used in the analysis ofthese applications, which included the SCLS. There are no comprehensive studies (i.e. commercial lands inventory) available for the entire UGB related to commercial lands within one specific time period. Rather, there is a conglomeration of various studies that are reviewed. For example, the 1992 Industrial Lands study is UGB-wide. The Residential Lands Inventory which is used by the City is not UGB,wide. Likewise, the SCLS is not Metro-wide. Ms. Sel!el's Submittal - Issue #2: "The adopted Springfield Natural Resource Study (adopted by Ordinance #6150) shows little or no impact on the commercial lands inventory from ,Goal protection measures, and provide little if any analyses of land availability within the entire Metro UGB area, rather than just the Springfield UGBarea. The analysis shows an impact of 11.56 acres o,n Springfield's (not the urban growth boundary area in its entirety)... The referenced studies / analyses referenced by the applicant do not take into account the 100 acres of new commercial land designated / rezoned to commercial in the Gateway area. " ' . 'AimIicant's Rebuttal: "Considering that the SCLS identified a deficit of 158 acres in the supply of commercial land over demand, accounting for this additional redesignated/rezoned land, this would still result in a deficit of more than 61 acres of needed commercial land. Approving the requested Plan . amendment/zone change would still leave a deficit of approximately 55 acres of needed commercial land... Therefore, even considering impacts to commercial lands inventories from other adopted and acknowledged plans (i.e. the City's plan for Goal 5 compliance) and acknowledged Plan amendments / zone changes, approval of the proposal will not result in there being an excess of needed commercially zoned and designated lalid. To the contrary, this analysis demonstrates that there willremain a deficit of approximately 66 acres after approval of the requested redesignation / rezoning. " STAFF RESPONSE: The Springfield Natural Resource Study (SNRS) is referenced by the applicant and staff as related to this PAPA because it provides a more updated view of the city's commercial & industrial lands inventory. It is not meant to be all inclusive in and of itself. Reference to the SNRS in conjunction with other referenced documents (i.e. the SCLS & 1992 Industrial Lands Study) is provided to give the most accurate information possible given all the available data at this time. Again, the applicant's report and staff's analysis reference the most recently adopted documents / inventories available. The City currently does not have an ongoing database < n ~. , that keeps track ofiilVentories based upon Plan Amendments and/or Zoning Map / ' Amendments on an ongoing basis. ' . . . The applicant's rebuttal references numbers of acres related to the,City's deficit of . commercial land. Staff concurs with the applicant's rebuttal related to number of acres of commercial lands. The redesignation and rezoning of up to 99 acres of residential land within the Gateway MDR site (as referenced by Ms: Segel) still does not negate the deficit of commercial land within Springfield's citr limits. Ms. Sel!el's Submittal- Issue #3: "The applicani has not justified the conversion of scarce. shovel'ready industrial land, especially land designated and zoned light medium industrial inside theMetroUGE. even. though the Metro Plan (comprehensive plan) Economic Element policy #12 establishes that the cities are to 'discourage future Metropolitan Area General Plan amendments that would change developm~nt ready industrial lands (sites defined as short-term in the metropolitan In,dustrial Lands Speqial Study, 1991) to noncindustrial designations. ' The applica!1t and staff findings do not address how the loss of these 5.24 acres impacts the short~terin supply of LMI designated land..." . Aoolicant's Rebuttal:' "Ms: Segel's citation of Economic Element Policy 12 ignores the fact that the subject site was not included among the sites "defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991). "...casting doubt on the applicability of Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 12... Even if Policy 12 were relevant. it's language is clearly not prohibitive to approval of an application for redesignationlrezoning of an industrial site. particularly when considering it in the context of industrial commercial land inventories. ...even if all of the acreage redesignated in 'Springfield were from the LMI designation - "which is no doubt notthe case -there would still be a surplus afnearly 50 acres of LMI designated land even after' approval of the requested Plan amendment. . This' does not accountfor the 11.5 acres of land added to the inventory ofLMI 'zon.ed and designated land referenced ilimy March 28;,2007 supplemental ' information. ... Therefore, the removal of 5.24 acr~s of LMI zoned and designated land will not result in a deficit of needed land in that industrial designation. ,...Moreover, although Economic Element Policy 12 "discourages" Plan amendments for certain industrial lands, there are countervailing policies in the' Metr; Plan (i.e., Economic Element Policy 6) and SCLS(i.e., Policies I,A and 1- C) that are directive to providing an adequate supply of needed commercial lands... " ST AFF RESPONSE: Staff co'ncur~ with the applicant's rebuttal to the issue raised. The applicant has cited numerous acreage calculations based off of adopted inventories which support the proposal. As noted by the applicant, the subject site. was not included among the sites defined as shorHe;m in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991. As noted in the applicant's rebuttal and as previously noted in this report and the original ,Staff Report, a deficit of commercial land and surplus of industrial land will still exist 1-~ even after an approval of the proposed Plan Amendment and concurrent Zoning Map Amendment. Ms. Se!!el's Submittal- Issue #4: "The ,4pplii:ant 's analysis of the proposals' consistency with comprehensive plan Economic Element policies found in the, Metropolitan General Plan, Chapter III, B-J - B~7 ,is insufficient and does not address the most significant policies that must b~ considered. " Aoolicant's Rebuttal: "...there are countervailing policies in the Metro Plan. (i.e., Economic Element Policy 6) and SCLS (i.e., Policies J,A and J-C) that are directive to providing. an adequate supply of needed commercial lands. TheMetro Plan recognizes suchconjlicts: "The respective jurisdictions recogni;e that:there are apparent conjlicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals, objectives, and policies., When making decisions based on the Plan, not all the goals, objectives, arid policies ca'n be met to the same degreidh every instance. " " '" ' Use of the Plan requires a .'balancing' of its various components on a case, by- case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand. "(pg. I-4, Metro Plan)... The applicant'soriginal March J5, 2007 submittal includedfindings addressing relevant Metro Plan . policies (see pg. 5 of the submittal, pg. 4,5 of the Commission's June 4, 2007 . hearing packet). Clearly not all of the 32 Metro Pian Economic Element policies are relevant to the proposal, Many are aspirational in nature and not directive io a specific quasijudicial application... STAFF RESPONSE; As noted in the applicant's rebuttal, policies in the Metro Plan are sometimes conflicting to one another. As stated on page 1-4 of the Metro Plan, "The r.espective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between.and among some goals, objectives, and policies: Wherlmaking decisions based on the Plan, not all the goals, objectives, and policies can be met to the saine degree in every instance. Use of the Plan requires a 'balancing' of its various components on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection ofthose goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand." The applicant submitted written statements relative to the policies which supported the proposaL As noted in the original Staff Report, Staff concurred :with the applicant's narrative related to the referenced Metro Plan policies . which support the proposal, given the relationship of those stated Metro Plan policies as reviewed concurrentlv with the referenced cOrrurlercial and industrial adopted inventories. Ms. Se!!el's Submittal- Issue #5: "The applicant is not specific about what uses will be cited should the proposal be approved, and there is no way to know if in fact above wagejobs and salaries... there is no way to establish if the applicant will in fact utilize local and imported capital, skills etc; as no commitment to a use has been established... " . Aoolicant's Rebuttal: ". ..Ms. Segel's assertion that the application was unspecific as to the future uses on Tax Lot 400 is inaccurate. The application narrative clearly states the intended purpose of the redesignation/rezoning is to H ".,";' . , allow for a future medical clinic on ,Tax Lot 400 and to allow the long-standing commercial operations on 'Tax Lot 402 to continue (pg. 2, pg. 4,2 in the Commission's June 4 hearing packet), Such clinical uses aI:e notpermitted in any industrial zoning district, thus prorilOpting the need to rezone (and Redesignate) Tax lot 400 to allow a medical clinic. Average wages and benefits formedical workers tends to be higher than average local wages, and further substantiating data can be entered into the record'at the City Council level:.. STAFF RESPONSE: The applicant has noted the intent ofthe Plan Amendment and concurrent zone change is for, the eventual developmentofa medical office building. This is mentioned not only in the applicant's narrative, but also in the 'applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis. In fact, the referenced table in the TlA (Table 7, pg. 19) specifically calculates trip generation forthe orooosedmedical office buildinp;. However, as noted by Ms. Segel, there is' no certainty as to what the salaries will be, if itwill utilize local capital, etc. With that said, there is no such assurance for any new use that might go on the property with the existing zoning and Plan designation either. Given the fact that the . applicant is a medical service provider (i.e. Peace Health); .that they are pursuing these applications; and that they have indicated on their application that the purpose of these applications is to develop a futUre medical, office clinic, it is highly likely (in Staffs opinion) that they will pursue themedical office use as they've specified, As noted in the applicant's rebuttal, average wages and benefits for medical workers tends to be higher than average local wages, Staff concurs with the applicant's rebuttal statement and affirms the original Staff Report findings indicating that the proposal is in compliance with applicable Metro Plan policies. Ms. Sel'el's Submittal- Issue #6: "The applicant makes the argument that the proposed plan amendment and zone change would have the effect of correcting existing non-conforming uses on TL #402. (map 17-02-32); however, the 2000 SCLC, at Appendix C, "Sites with Plan/Zone COflflicts" does not include the subject property. It appears that the existing nonconforming uses were actually established AFTERadoption of the 2000 SCLS, indicating that the existing uses 'w~re actually permitted by the City wiih the knowledge that these uses would. create plan/z.one conflicts. " Auulicant's Rebuttal: "The applicant does not allege th~t there is a Plan/zone conflict an Tax Lot 402; clearly the existing Plan designations and zoning are LMI. Rather, the point made in our applicdtion'narrative is that commercial uses, have existed for decades, pre-existing the establishment of the Metro Plan and the application of the LMl designation on the subject properties. Ms, Segel provides no evidence to back up her accusation that the City wittingly allowed commercial uses on Tax Lot 402 after adoption of the SCLS The'applicant and owner of Tax , Lot 402 will provide additional evidence and testimony at the City Council hearing on July 2 which will further demonstrate'iactually that commercial uses and employment have been in the building on TaxL~t 402 for nearly 50 years,.. " Hi ~....... STAFF RESPONSE: The existinl! zonin~ for TL #402 is,Lil!ht Medium Industrial (LMI). The existinl! Plan Desil!nation for TL #402 is Lil!ht Medium Industrial (LMI). Therefore, there is no Plan/zone conflict as'alleged by Ms. Segel. A non-conforming use is, not the same as a plan/zone conflict. Ms. Segel alleges that the City permitted the existing uses on TL #402 "AFTER adoption of the 2000SCLS..." and further states that the uses were ". ..permitted by the City with the knowledge that these uses, would create plan/zone conflicts." This allegation'has ~ot merit for multiple reasons. Articl~ 5 of the Spiingfield Development Code provides provisions to allow existing non-conforming, uses to modify or expand based upon specific criteria. A "non-conforming,use" is a use that was legally created when first established but would noi be allowed as a "new use" under the existing zoning, The existing commercial uses on TL #402 are most likely considered non-conforming uses (i.e. commercial uses on industrial zoned property). The' 2000 SCLS does not list TL #402 as a Plan/Zone conflict because it is not a plan zone' conflict. . , ' , Ms. Se!!el's Submittal- Issue #7: "The proposed change is not 'iogical and harmonious' because it is not consistent with the development pattern envisioned in the Metro Plan ...Compliance ><:ith statewide planning goals, including goals' 2,6,9,10,12 and 13 has not, been established. In particular, it has not been established that the Eugene,Springfield Metro UGB area's supply o/campus industrial land wi/tbe protected pursuant to the PAPA and zone change' . proposal... Staff has failed to address the impact that this proposal will have on the dwindling supply of shovel ready industrial land inside the Springfield city limits, including prior actions approving land ~se code amendlrzents, to the campus industrial zone that established more 'flexibility 'for what uses are aI/owed in the City's campus industrial zones," . , , Aoolicant's Rebuttal: "It.shouldfirstbe noted that the application does not involve or in any way-affect the 'metro area's supply of campus industrial land. ' Moreover, ,the application has no effect upon Goat' 1 0 (Housing), and has elsewhere demonstrated compliance with GoalI2 and other applicable statewide ,planning goals, My guess is that Ms. Segel and Nancy Falk, who appeared at the June 4 hearing and requested the written record be left open for a week, both vigorously appose the Plan amendment/zone change p'roposed for the Marcola Meadows project, and are borrowing arguments to also object to this modest request before the City... The contention thatthe proposal would not result iiz a 'logical and harmonious' land use pattern is without substance or basis in fact, and is not an approval criterion. As noted above and elsewhere in the record, this proposal is consistent with policies and provisions in the Metro Plan, its Economic Element, supporting refinement plans (i.e., theSCLS and MILS) to the Metro Plan, and Goal,9 and other applicablestatewide planning goals..." STAFF RESPONSE: Ms. Segel refers to the existing zoI)ingofthe subject site as "Campus Industrial" multiple times in her letter. The subject property is zoned and designated Lie:htMedium Industrial, not Camous Industrial, As noted in the applicant's rebuttal, the statement submitted by Ms. Segel indicating that the"... proposed change is '. 0 , !l not 'logical and harmonious...' is not a criterion of approval for these applications. Staff have reviewed the proposal based upon the applicable criteria of approval, and found that it meets the criteria (with conditions) as written in the Staff Report. The inventories of commercial and industrial land have been,evaluated and balanced with the relevant Metro Plan policies to formulate the recommendation for approval with conditions. Specific findings related to the Statewide Planning:Ooals have alsobeeninduded in the original Staff Report. 1-7 GOAL ONE COALITION ~ . Goal One is Citizen Involvement City of Springfieid Planning Commission David Reesor City of Springfield 225 Fifth Street ' Springfield, OR 97444 June 12, 2007 I pR(,,;fi'.rv j'j~D i !llfi' 'l )[107 . ~ '. " ~, II.,~ . - ,,---;:::;R 1,4:).r. ; RE: ZON 2007-00012/LRP 2007-00013, Plan Amendment & Zone Change Dear Members of the Commission: The Goal One Coalition (Goal One) is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide assistance and support to Oregonians in matters affecting their communities. Goal One is participatillg in these proceedings at the request of and on behalf of its membership residing in Lane County. This testimony is presented on behalf of Goal One and its membership, including Nancy Falk, 2567 Marcola Road, Springfield Oregon 97477, as an individual, I. Introduction This proposal is for a site-specific Metro.Plan Amendment / Refinement Plan Amendment and a concUrrent Zoning Map Amendment from Light Medium Industrial (LM!) to Community Commercial (CC) within the Springfield citY limits. The subject site is located near 44th and MainStreet (Highway 126). The site consists of two parcels under separate ownerships, and is located ,on approximately 5.24 acres identified as Tax Lots 400 and 402 on Assessor's Map No. 17-02,32-00. TL 400 (5.01 acres) has several vacant buildings on site, including portable trailer type structures. The smaller of the two subject lots, TL 402 (.24 acres), has an existing commercial development on,site, although the plan designation and zone are LML Properties located to the north (Weyerhauser) are zoned and designated heavy industrial. Parcels located west of the subject site are designated mixed- use on the East Main Refineinent Plan, Property located east and adjacent to TL #402 is built out as a business park, and designated LMI. Properties located soull} of the subject site, across Main Street, are zoned and'designated Community CommerciaL. . II. Criteria applicable to the request Local approval criteria are found in the. following documents: Springfield Development Code, Metro General Plan, and East Main Refinement Plan, as indicated in the staff report. The proposed plan amendment must also be found to be consistent ,with applicable statewide planning goa12' ORS I 97.175(2)(a), Applicable goals include Goal I, Citizen Involvement, Goal 2, Land Use Planning; Goal 9, Economy of the State; and Goal 12, Transportation. The , Eugene office: 642 Chamelton Suite 100 . Eugene OR 9740 I . 541-431.7059 . Fax 541-431,7078 Lebanon office: 39625 Almen Drive' Lebanon OR 97355; 541-258,6074' Fax 541,258,6810 www.goaI1.org . .. ~ "__ 2-1 ATTACHMENT GOAL ONE COALITION proposed plan, amendment must also comply with administrative rules implementing applicable statewide planning goals. III. Analysis. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY AND COMPLIANCEWITH STATEWIDE GOALS All comprehensive plan amendments are reviewable for compliance With the statewide planning goals. Residents of Rosemont v. Metro, 173 Or App 3.21 (2001); 1000 Friends of Oregon v, Jackson County, 79 Or App 93, 97, 718 P2d 753 (1986), rev den 301 Or 445'. (1987); Opus Development Corp. v. City of Eugene, 141 Or App 249, 254, 918 P2d 116 (1996). Goal 2 - Land Use Planning is: "To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual base for decisions and actions." Specifically, local land ,use actions "shall be . cOnsistent with the comprehensive plans." Goal 2, Part L Further, the information upon which land use decisions are made "shall be contained in the plan document or supporting documents." Goal 1 , Part L In this case, the applicant relies heavily on the acknowledged 2000 Springfield Commercial Lands Study (SCLS), which does not address the entire Metro UGB area, and is not a refil:Jement plan of the Metro Plan. It is the 1992 Metropolitan Industrial Lands Study, that does address the entire Metro UGB area, is part of the Metro Plan, and is reflected in the Economic Element of the Plan, The 'proposed. findings rely on reports and other documents containing inventories, assumptions, and data that have not been established for the entiie Metro UGS area, but rather only for the Springfield portion of the UGS area. TIlls material includes data used to justify findings of compliance with goal 9,' Any decision relying on such findings would not comply with Goal 2. ' GoalS Concerning applicability of land inventories pursuant to Ordinance #6150 .thal adopted the Springfield Natural Resource Study, staffs position is that inventories' established pursuant to Goal 5 are relevant considerations in considering availability, of commercial and industrial land. However, that analysis (applicant's Attachment "A", tables II-I, 11-2 and 11-3) actually show little or no impact on the commercial lands inventory from Goal 5 protection measures, and provide little if any analyses of land availability within the entire Metro UGS area, rather than just the Springfield UGB area" Table 11,2, Analysis of Maximum Possible Impact on Supply of Commercial Lands within the Springfield Urban Growth Boundary shows an impact of 11.56 acres on Springfield's (not the urban growth boundary area in it's entirety) commercial land supply., ' ' Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007,00012 - LRP 2007-00013 .2 2-2 GOAL ONE COALITION Additionally, the analysis pursuant to Ordinance #6150 fails to account for lands ADDED TO the commercial inventory since 2000, including but not limited to the Gateway MDR site's 100 acres, providing a skewed picture of the actual commercial land inventory. To skew. the picture even further, the analysis of maximum possible impact from Goal 5 proteCtion measures on supply of industrial lands (Ordinance #6150, table 11-1) considers ALL industrial lands within the entire Metro UGB area, rather than just the Springfield portion of the UGB, and does not provide a breakdown of number of industrially zoned acres in Springfield vs. Eugene. The 2000 SCLS, however (Table 3-2) shows that the number oflight medium industrial (LMI) acres by plan designation in the Springfield UGB area is 198.77, while the number of LMI acres within the" Eugene UGB is shown to be 1230.78. The applicant fails to establish the relevancy of these tables to the currenlP AP A and zone change proposal, considering that only about 16% of the Metro area ugb industrial land supply is within the Springfield City limits. ' Goal 9 - Economic Development is: "To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." The Staff Report's Goal 9 findings are based upon the 1992 Industrial Land Study and the 2000 Commercial Land Study. Goal 2 requires that information upon which land use decisions are made be contained in the plan document or supporting documents. OAR 660-015-0000(2), Part I Planning establishes that city, county, state and federal agency and special district plans and actions related to land use shall be consistent with the comprehensive plans of cities and counties and regional plans adopted under ORS Chapter 268. ' Goal 9 - 660-009-0010 (4) establishes that for a post,acknowledgement plan amendment under OAR chapter 660, division 18, that-changes the plan (jesignation ofland in excess , of two acres within an existing urban growth boundary from an industrial use designation to a.non-industrial use designation, or an other employment use designation to any other use designation, a city or county must address all applicable planning requirements, and: (emphasis added) . (a) Demonstrate that the proposed amendment is consistent with its most recent economic opportunities analysis and (emphasis added) the parts of its acknowledged comprehensive plan which address the requirements of this division; The applicant appears to rely heavily on inventory and policy statements established by the 2000 SCLS in establishing that the proposal is consistent with the Goal 9 rule. However, the applicant's analysis of the proposals' consistency with comprehensive plan Economi<; Element policies found in the Metropolitan General Plan, Chapter III, B-1 - B-7 is insufficient and does not address the most significant p04cies that must be considered. The proposal would decrease the. City's campus industrial land inventory by yet another 5.24 acres. The applicant has. not justified the conversion of scarce, shovel ready industrial land, Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007..00012, LRP 2007..00013 ,2-3 3 GOAL ONE COALITION especially land designated and zoned light medium industrial inside the Metro UGH, even though Metro Plan (comprehensive plan) Economic Element policy # 12 establishes that the cities are to "discourage future Metropolitan Area General Plan amendments that would change development ready industrial lands (sites defined as short - term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991) to non-industrial designations." The applicant and staff . findings do not address how the loss of these 5.24 acres impacts the short,term supply ofLMI ' , designated land. The applicant makes the argument that the propo,sed plan amendment and zone change would have the effect of correcting existing non-conforming uses on TL #402. (map, 17-02-32); however, the 2000 SCLC, at Appendix C, "Sites.with Plan/Zone Conflicts" does not include the subject property. It appears that the existing nonconforming uses were actually established AFTER adoption of the 2000 SCLS, indicating that the existing uses were actually permitted by the City with the knowledge that these uses would create plan/zone conflicts. In addressing applicability of the Springfield Comrilercial Lands Study (2000 SCLS), the 'applicant appears to try to separate the Metro, Area by jurisdictional boundary. However, Eugene and Springfield have a shared and adopted UGB, Comprehensive Plan, and Industrial Lands study. The jurisdictionally focused SCLS does not analyze supply and demand for the entire Metro UGB area and cannot be relied upon on it's own to establish consistency with the requirements of OAR 660-009-0010 (4), which establishes that the proposed PAPA be consistent with both (emphasis added) the most recent economic opportunities analysis (i.e. the 2000 SCLS) and the comprehensive plan. ' . A related problem with placing such heavy reliance on the 2000 SCLS to establish Goal 9 compliance is that in analyzing supply and demand, the study fails to consider or otheJWise account for lands added to the commercial inventory via applicant initiated and city approved zone changes and plan amendments. One very obvious example of an addition to the Springfield commerciiU lands inventory was the 2003 plan amendment and zone change (LRP 2003-0013 and ZON 2003-0019) at the 100-acre Gateway Medium Density Residential site that had the effect of rezoning and redesignating 100 acres of residential land to commerCial. The applicant provides a spreadsheet (their Attachment B) that supposedly accounts for all Metro Plan diagram changes affecting the supply of residential, commercial and industrial Lands in the city of Springfield between 1991 and the present, but has failed to account for or otherwise address the addition of commercial land to the SCLS, even though it is clear that more than 100 acres of commercial land has been added to the inventory since the year 2000. This omission raises doubt as. to the accuracy of applicant's Attachment B in supposedly accounting for,additions to and subtractions frorn the various land inventories. The applicant also relies in part on inventories established in conjunction with adoption of Springfield's Natural Resource (NR) Study, by Ordinance #6150 on November 28, 2005. While those inventories may be relevant to this proposal in that possible 'impacts' resulting from Goal 5 protection measures were considered for all zoning classificationS, the analysis of maximum possible impact on supply of coriunercial lands pUrsuant to the study is limited to the area within the Springfield portion of the Metro UGB (table 11-2). Again, because Eugene and Springfield share a UGB and a comprehensive plan, an analysis of the entire UGB area is necessary to establish an accurate picture of the supply'of commercial lands. Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007..Q0012, LRP 2007,00013 , 4 2-4 GOAL ONE COALITION In any case, the NR Study found that the maximum possible impact of Ooal 5 protection measures on the Springfield Commercial Lands InventOl)' would be the loss of 11.56 "commercial acres." LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL LAND The proposed plan amendments and zone changes would remove 5.24 acres of shovel ready light medium industrial land from the Metro UOB area industrial lands inventOl)'. This is in addition to an additional 56 acre conversion of campus industrial to community commercial land less than 2 miles away which is currently pending approval by the Springfield city council. The applicant is vague about the purpose of the proposed plan amendment and zone change, noting that, with approval of the plan amendment and zone change, the uses could include a possible future medical clinic, and the provision of family wage jobs. The applicant has said nothing about the existence of their other 100 acre medical campus located within about 5 miles of the subject properties proposed for plan and zone changes. 'Given this fact, the applicant has not justified the removal of shovel ready light medium industrial land for commercial uses. This area within the Springfield city limits is already inundated with commercial zoning and commercial uses, and 'approval of this proposal would contribute even further to over commercialization within the city of Springfield. The applicant cites 4 of the 32 'Economic Element policies pursuant to the comprehensive plan (Metro Plan) (Chapter Ill, Section B) of the Plan as relevant to the proposed P AI' A. The four Plan policies considered by the applicant as relevant to the supply of industrial land are policies 1,2, 6,.and II Policy I is to Demonstrate a positive interest in existing and new industries, especially those providing above wage job and salary levels, and increased variety of job opportunities, a rise in the standard of living, and utilization of our existing comparative advantage in the level of education and skill of the resident labor force. However, the applicant is not specific about what uses will be cited should the proposal be approved, and there is no way to know if in fact above wage jobs and salaries. Policy 2 is to encourage economic development which utilizes local and imported capital, entrepreneurial skills, and the resident labor force. Again, there is no way to establish if the applicant will in fact utilize local and imported capital, skills etc. as no commitment to a use has been established. Policy 6 merely states: "Increase'the amount of undeveloped land zoned (emphasis added) for light industrial and commercial uses correlating the effective supply in terms of suitability and availability with the projections of demand. " This policy addresses zoning only, not plan designation, and concerns the necessity of.having adequate supplies of land of both commercial iilld industrial designations. It says nothing concerning the applicability of favoring one plan designation over the other. ' ~ Metro PlanlEast Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007..()0012, LRP'2007"()0013 2-5 5 GOAL ONE COALITION Policy II is to encOurage economic activities wmch strengthen the metropolitan area's position as a regional distribution, trade, health, and service center. The applicant asserts that the amendment (sic) will facilitate the development of medical uses that will.serve the needs of the growing residential areas in east, south and southeast Springfield, and strengthen the metropolitan area's position as a premier locale for healthcare services, consistent with this policy objective. Considering that their 2003 zone change and plan amendments were based on the assertions that provision of . medical care pursuant to campus style medical facility development is the wave of the future, and that the applicant already has established their dominance in the health care market within the city limits, it has hard to fathom why they think another 5.24 acres will somehow strengthen Springfield's position as a premier locale for healthcare. services. The PAPA proposal must be consistent with the Economic Element of the Comprehensive plan in it's entirety. A major omission found in the application and staff report is an analysis of all the Metro Plan Economic Element policies other than the four addressed by the applicant, The remaining 28 policies should be addressed in some manner. More specifically, the following policies are directly relevant to the inventory of industrial lands throughout the Eugene-Springfield Metro UGBarea. 5 -,Provide existing industrial activities sufficient adjacent land for future expansion. This Plan provision is directly applicable becaUse the subject properties are currently zoned and designated to take advantage oflight medium industrial designation and zoning. This proposal to eliminate more industrial zoning adjacent to existing and developed industrial zoning, plan designation, and uses is clearly inconsistent with the Metro Plan Economic element, and if approved would have the effect of limiting future growth and expansion of the existing campus industrial uses. 7 - Encourage industrial park development, including areas for warehousing and distributive industries and research and development activities. Economic Element of the Metro Plan, Finding #17 establishes: "Special light industrial firms" "have varied site location requirements, prefer alternative sites to choose from, and usually benefit from lo~tionof other special light industrial firms within the community and within the same industrial development." The subject site is located adjacent to'an existing light medium industrial site. 9 - Encourage the expansion of existing and the location of new manufacturing activities wmch are characterized by low levels of pollution and efficient energy use, . Staffhas not discussed efforts to attract and/or encourage expansion of manufacturing activities that could be sited on campus industrial zoned and designated lands. The only reference to this issue from staff is that there hasn't been much interest in the site from the industrial development sector. 15 - Encourage compatibility between industrially zoned lands and adjacent areas in local planning program. . . Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 200Hl0012, LRP 2007-00013 6 2-6 .--~-" GOAL ONE COAUTION Neighbors have expressed no concem about their quality oflife from existing industrialuses. The applicant has not addressed why or how the existing light medium industrial zoning and plan designation is incompatible with the adjacent neighborhood zoning and plan designation. 16 - Utilize processes and local controls which encourage retention oflarge parcels or consolidation of small parcels of industrially or commercially zoned land to facilitate their use or reuse in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal fashion. The subject properties are adjacent to a lirrge parcel which is zoned and designated LMI. Staff is directed by this policy to encourage retention of this parcel of industrially zoned and designated land, which is one of the few remaining parcels of LMI land within the Springfield city limits. 21 - Reserve several areas within the UGB for large scale, campus type, light manufacturing' uses. Staffhas failed to address the impact that this proposal will have on the dwindling supply of shovel ready industrial land inside the Springfield city limits, including prior actions ' approving hind use code amendments to the campus industrial zone that established more 'flexibility' for what uses are allowed in the city's campus industrial zones. 28 - Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood. This PAPA proposal requests community commercial plan designation and zoning yet has not considered or otherwise addressed the applicability of neighborhood commercial zoning vs. the requested community commercial zoning. Staff and applicant have not addressed the applicability of community commercial zoning within a node, or explained why neighborhood commercial zoning is being ignored for higher intensity uses in this existing neighborhood. AIl the Metro Plan Economic Element policies are applicable to this application, and should have been addressed by the applicant. . III. Conclusion The proposed plan amendment is not logical and harmonious with the land use pattern for the greater area. The proposed change is not, "logical and harmonious" because it is not consistent with the development pattern envisioned in the Metro Plan. Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007..00012, LRP 2007..00013 2-7 7 , GOAL ONE COALITION The requested plan amendment does not comply with policies of the Metro Plan and Metropolitan Industrial Lands,Special Study. The requested plan amendment and 'zone change does not benefit the public and are not appropriate, Goal One and other parties whose addresses appear in the first paragraph of this letter request notice and a 'copy of arty decision and findings regarding this matter. Respectfuily submitted, Lauri Segel Community Planner Metro Plan/East Main Refinement Plan, ZON 2007-00012, LRP 2007-00013 8 . 2-8 1I PetceHealth June 13,2007 Springfield Planning Commission Attn: David Reesor, Planner City of Springfield Development Services Department 225 Fifth Street Springfield, OR 97477 Re: ZON 2007,00012, LRP 2007-00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Dear Chairinan Cross and Commissioners, The Commission considered tlie above-referenced applications on June 5 at a duly noticed work session and public hearing. The following rebuts written testimony submitted by Lauri Segel of the Goal One Coalition at the close of the extended record yesterday. Ms. Segel suggests that the applications do. not comply with statewide planning Goal 9 (Economic Development) - and by extension with Goal 2 . (Land Use Planning) - because the 2000 Springfield Commercial Lands' Study (SCLS) "does not address the entire Metro UGB area, and is not a refinement plan of the Metro Plan." (pg, 2; June 12,2007 Segel letter) She further states that "Eugene and Springfield have a shared and adopted UGB, Comprehensive Plan, and Industrial Lands study. The jurisdictionally focused SCLS does not analyze supply and demand for the entire Metro UGB 'area and cannot be relied upon on it's [sic] own to establish consistency with the requirements ofOAR660-009,0010 (4), , which establishes that the proposed PAPA [Plan amendment] be consistent with both (emphasis added) the most recent economic opportunities analysis (i.e., the 2000 SCLS) and the comprehensive plan." (pg. 4, Segel.1etter) , Aoolicant's Response: The SCLS was developed by the City and adopted by the Springfield City Council (Resolution No. 00,13 and included in the end pages of the SCLS) to comply with Goal 9 and applicable OARs pursuant to periodic review . requirements established by the Oregon Land Conservation and Development . Commission. Prior to, the SCLS, the City of Eugene had an ackllowledged plan for complying with Goal 9, the 1992 Eugene Commercial Lands Study (ECLS). The ECLS states: "The study includes solely the Eugene portion of the metropolitan urban growth boundary." (pg. 1-3, ECLS) . Phone: (541) 686.3660 Fax: (541) 686-3699 PO Box 1479 Eugene OR 97440-1479 www.peacehealth.org Dedicated 10 Exceptional Medicine and Compassionate Care 3-1 ATTACHMENT Re: 'ZON 2Q07 ,00012, LRP, Lc _ , ,00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change' Applicant's Rebuttal June 13.2007 Page 2 Although there is in fact an acknowledged study covering both communities' industrial lands (the 1993 Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy Report, and companion Inventory Report), the cities of Eugene and Springfield have separately adopted and acknowledged corrimerciallands studies fulfilling the requirements of Goal 9. As such, the SCLS serves as the City of Springfield's "most recent economic opportunities analysis," as Ms. Segel notes above by her own admission. The SCLS also complies with Metro Plan Policy 31 which called for the City to conduct a commercial lands study, and fulfills the City's Goal 9 requirements pursuant. to the periodic review work order, now accepted as complete by DLCD. There is no requirement that the Applicant or the City perform a metro' wide analysis of commercial lands in order to adopt findings satisfying compliance ' with Metro Plan policies and Goal 9. Ms. Segel states that the analysis provided does not account for additions to the inventory of commercial lands, notably "the Gateway MDR site's 100 acres." (pg. 4, Segel letter) . Aoolicant's Resllonse: The City previously adopted amendments to the Gateway Refinement Plan (Jo. No. 2002-08-244), including GRP Implementation Action 12.1; which limited redesignation and rezoning of up to 99 acres ofresidentialland within the Gateway MDR, .site, Subsequent Plan diagram amendments and zone changes.of 96.2 acres and 3.5 acres resulted in redesignation/rezoning of96,2 acres to Mixed Use Commercial or Medical Services of the possible 99 acres available under the GRP. Considering that the SCLS identified a deficit of 158 acres in the supply of commercial land over demand, accounting for this additional redesignated/rezoned land, this would still result in a deficit of more than 61 acres of needed commercial land. Approving the requested Plan amendment/zone change would still leave a deficit of approximately 55 acres of needed commercial land. The supplemental information submitted into.the record by the Applicant included the City's analysis of impacts to the commercial lands inventory pursuant to the City's . acknowledged compliance with Goal 5 periodic review requirements. Table 11-2 of this analysis (see pg, 3,25 in the Commission's June 4,2007 hearing packet) identifies that as a consequence of the City's Goal 5 protection measures that approximately 11.5 acres would be removed from the inventory of needed commercial lands, thus further adding to the commercial lands deficit established in the SCLS. Therefore, even considering impacts to commercial lands inventories from other adopted and acknowledged plans (i,e., the City's plan for Goal 5 compliance) and acknowledged Plan amendmentslzone changes, approval of the proposal will not result in there being an excess of needed commercially zoned and designated land, To the contrary, this analysis demonstrates that there will remain a deficit of approximately 66 acres after approval of the requested redesignation/rezoning. 3-2 ~.. Re: ZON 2007,00012, LRl' l007,OOOl3 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change - Applicant's Rebuttal June 13. 2007 P~ge 3 Ms. Segel states that the application relies "heavily on inventory and policy statements established by the 2000 SCLS in establishing that the proposal is consistent with the Goal 9 rule. However, the applicant's analysis of the proposals' consistency with comprehensive plan Economic Element policies found in the Metropolitan General Plan, Chapter III, B,I - B,7 is insufficient and does not address the. most significant policies that, must be considered." (pg. 3, Segel letter) , She further alleges that the application hasn't "justified the conversion of scarce, shovel ready industrial land, especially land designated and zoned light medium industrial inside the Metro UGB, even though the Metro Plan (comprehensive plan) Economic ElemeI}t policy #12 establishes that the cities are to 'discourage future Metropolitan Area General Plan amendments that would change deveIopment ready industrial lands (sites defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991) to non-industrial designations.' The applicant and staff findings do , not address how the loss of these 5,24 acres impacts the short,term supply of LMI designated land." Aoolicant's Resoonse: The Applicant's original March 15,2007 submittal included, findings addressing relevant Metro Plan policies (see pg. 5 of the submittal, pg. 4,5 of the Commission's June 4, 2007 hearing packet), Clearly not all of the 32 Metro Plan Economic Element policies are relevant to the proposal. Many are aspirational in nature and not directive to a spedfic quasi-judicial application, for example Policy 28: . ,"Recognize the vital role of neighborhood commercial facilities in providing services and goods to a particular neighborhood," (pg. II1-B-6, Metro Plan) Others are directed to. _ actions that the public sector jurisdictions are to undertake, such as Policy 31, which Springfield did in conducting iil the SCLS: "Conduct a Commercial Lands Study prior to the next major plan update." (pg. III,B, 7, ibid) Nonetheless, to demonstra,te that all policies were considered irrespective of their applicability" the Applicant will provide supplemental findings and enter them into the record prior.to the City Council hearing on these applications. However, this does not suggest that the Applicant's findings are': presently inadequate or that the Metro Plan policies cited are not on point. . Ms. Segel's citation of Economic Element Policy 12 ignores the fact that the subject site was not included amoTlg the sites "defined as short-term in the metropolitan Industrial Lands Special Study, 1991)." The adopted and acknowledged Metropolitan Industrial Lands Policy and Inventory Reports identify the subject site as being included in . "Subregion #8 - East Springfield." Maps and tabular information in these reports (pp. 42-44, tables pp. 18-26; 1993 MIL Policy Report) do not identify the subject site among the "short-term sites" in the industrial lands study, presumably because both were considered developed. The abutting property now developed with the Hyland Business Park was, however, identified in the study as site #7 in this subregion. While the Hyland property was included in the matrix of "short, term sites," it was also identified as being a "developed" site. The MIL Policy Report states that "sites developed during the study 3-3 Re: ZON 2007,00012, LRP "_" /,00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13. 2007 Page 4 ' , were not included in the short-term supply of sites. Staffprojected a five year need for industrial sites based on development trends in Eugene-Springfield during the previous two year period, a time of economic growth, This short term demand was compared to the existing supply of sites, excluding those already developed. [emphasis in original . report]" (pp. 15, 16) Therefore, the subject site was not included in the inventory of 'short,term industrial sites in the industriallan'ds study casting doubt on the applicability of Metro Plan Economic Element Policy 12. Even if Policy 12 were relevant, its language is clearly not prohibitive to approval of an application for redesignation/rezoning of an industrial site, particularly when considering 'it.in the context of industrial and commercial land inventories. As stated above and established in the record, there is a demonstrated need for additional commercial land, which the proposal helps address. ' The record also includes evidence demonstrating that there is a surplus of needed industrial land. The acknowledged metro industrial lands study identified a surplus of buildable light medium industrial acreage, and overall industrial acreage, in Eugene, Springfield, and combined in the metro UGB. Table 5 in the MIL Invento'ry Report (pg. 47) identifies supplies of buildable industrial'land as follows:' ' Eugene Springfield Metro UGB LMI Acres 1,230.78 198.77 1,429.55 Total Industrial Acres 2,895.49 708.80 3,604.29 The report further states that the study"identifies about 1,688 constraint-free industrial acres.,.. This supply exceeds the projected demand overthe next twenty years, which is between 650 to 1,172 acres."(pg, 73, MIL Inventory Report) As noted in the City's GoalS analysis entered into the record, the maximum impact of industrial acreage from GoalS protection measures in Springfield is 54.43 acres (Table 11.3, pg. 3-25 of the Commission's June 4 hearing packet). The analysis also found that there were 90,80 acres removed from the industrial designation by prior Plan amendments in Springfield. Therefore, even if all of the industrial acreage impacted by GoalS and all of the acreage redesignated in Springfield were from the LMI designation - which' is no doubt not the case - there would still be a surplus of nearly 50 acres of LMI designated land even after approval of the requested Plan amendment. This does not account for the 11.5 acres ofland added, to the inventory of LMI zoned and designated land referenced in my,March 28, 2007 supplemental information, Therefore, the removal of 5.24 acres ofLMI zoned and designated land will not result in a deficit of needed land in that industrial designation. Moreover, although Economic Element Policy 12 "discourages" Plan amendments for certain industrial lands, there are countervailing policies in the Metro Plan (i.e" 3-4 r Re: ZON 2007,00012, LRr L007,00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13.2007 / Page 5 Economic Element Policy 6) and SCLS (i.e., Policies I-A and I-C) that are directive to providing an adequate supply of needed commercial lands. The Metro Plan recognizes such conflicts: "The respective jurisdictions recognize that there are apparent conflicts and inconsistencies between and among some goals, objectives; and policies. When making decisions based on the Plan, not all the goals, objectives, and policies can be met. to the same degree in every instance. Use ofthe Plan requires a 'balancing' of its various components on a case-by-case basis, as well as a selection of those goals, objectives, and policies most pertinent to the issue at hand." (pg. 1-4, Metro Plan) The Applicant contends that findings and evidence in the record from adopted and acknowledged sources demonstrate that approval of the requested redesignation/rezoning is consistent . with applicable policies and fulfills the City's employment-generating objectives and requirements under Goal 9, Ms. Segel's letter states that "the applicant is not specific.about what uses will, be cited should the proposal be approved, and there is' no way to know if in fact [sic] above wage jobs and salaries." (pg. 5, Segel letter) She also states that while "the applicant argues that the proposal would have the effect of correcting existing non-conforming uses on TL #402" that the property is not included in the "Sites with Plan/Zone Conflicts" in the SCLS. She goes on to state that "it appears that the existing nonconforming uses were actually established AFTER adoption of the 2000 SCLS, indicating that the existing uses were actUally permitted by the City with the knowledge that these uses would create plan/zone conflicts." (pg. 4, Segel letter) Aonlicant's Resnonse: The Applicant does not allege that there is a Plan/zone conflict on Tax Lot 402; clearly the existing Plan designations and zoning are LML Rather, the point made in our application narrative is that commercial uses have existed for decades, pre,existing the establishment of the Metro Plan and the application of the LM1 (jesignation on the subject properties: Ms. Segel provides no ,evidence to back up her' accusation that the City wittingly allowed commercial uses on Tax Lot 402 after adoption ofthe SCLS. The Applicant and owner of Tax Lot.402 will,provide additional evidence and testimony at the City Council hearing on July 2 which will further demonstrate factually that commercial uses and employment have been in the building on Tax Lot 402 for nearly 50 years. Ms, Segel's assertion that the application was unspecific as to the future uses on Tax Lot 400 is inaccurate. The application narrative clearly states the intended purpose of the redesignation/rezoning is to allow for a future medical clinic on Tax Lot 400 and to allow the long-standing commercial operations on Tax Lot 402 to continue (pg. 2, pg. 4-2 in the Commission's June 4 hearing packet). Such clinical uses are not permitted in any industrial zoning district, thus prompting the need to rezone (and redesignate) Tax Lot 400 to allow a medical clinic. Average wages and benefits for medical workers tends to 3-5 Re: ZON 2007,00012, LRP lvv ,-00013 - Plan Amendment/Zone Change Applicant's Rebuttal June 13.2007 Page 6 be higher than average local wages, and further substantiating data can be entered into the record at the City Council level. Ms. Segel contends that the proposal is not "logical and harmonious" with land use patterns in the greater area, inconsistent with the intent of the -Economic Element of the Metro.Plan, doesn't comply with Metro Plan policies, and hasn't demonstrated compliance with statewide planning goals 2, 6, 9,10,12, and 13. "In particular, it has notbeen,established that the Eugene,Springfield metro area's supply of campus industrial land will be protected pursuant to the PAPA and zone change proposaL" Aoolicant's Resoonse: 1\ should first be noted that the application does not involve or in any way affect the "metro area's supply of campus industrial land." Moreover, the application has no effect upon Goal 1 0 (Housing), and has elsewhere demonstrated compliance with Goal 12 and other applicable statewide planning goals. My guess is that Ms. Segel and Nancy Falk, who appeared at the June 4 hearing and requested the written record be left open for a week, both vigorously oppose the Plan amendment/zone change proposed for the Marcola Meadows project, and are borrowing arguments to also object to this modest request before the City. The contention that the proposal would not result in a "logical and harmonious" land use pattern is 'without substance or basis in fact, and is,not an approval criterion. As noted above and elsewhere in the record, this proposal is consistent with policies and provisions in the Metro Plan, its Economic Element, supporting refinement plans (i.e., the SCLS and MILS) to the Metro Plan, and Goal 9 and other applicable statewide planning goals. On the basis of the record and arguments before you, we urge you to support the Staff recommendation and forward to the City Council your recommendation approving the pending applications. , , ~~. -p- - 'VltI"'" "" Fhilip Farringt n, ,.ICP Director, Land Use Planning & Development PeaceHealth Oregon Region cc: Jim Werfelmann . Andrew Head Shaun Hyland 3-6 . BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION FOR A METRO PLAN'! EAST MAIN STREET REFINEMENT PLAN MAP AMENDMENT AND A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT + + + + CASE NO. LRP2007-00013 CASE NO. ZON2007-00012 FINDING, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COuNCIL NATURE OF THE APPLICATION This is a consolidated application forthe above referenced case numbers, The applicant requests approval of a Metro Plan I East Main Refinement Plan Map Amendment and a concurrent Zoning Map Amendment on properties identified as Lane County Assessor's Map No. 17,02,32,00, Tax Lots 400 and 402. The request involves two contiguous properties near 44th and Main Street. Specifically, the applicant proposes to change Metro Plan designation from Liglit Medium Industria] to Commercial and a concurrent Refinement Plan Map and a Zoning Map Amendment from LMI to CC. I. The subj,ct applications for a Metro Plan' I RefInement Plan map amendment and Zoning Map Amendment were submitted to the Development Services Department on March 16'" 2007, and deemed as complete on April II th, 2007. 2. The application was submitted in accordance with Section 3,050 of the Springfield Development Code. Timely and sufficient notice of the public hearing, pursuant to Section 14.030 of the Springfield Development Code, has been provided. 3. On June 5th, 2007 a public hearing on th~ zone change request was held. The'Development Services Department staff notes including criteria of approval, findings and recommendations, together with the testimony and submittals of the persons testifying at that hearing have been considered and are part of the record of this proceeding. . 4. On June 19th, 2007 the Planning Commission considered additional information submittea into ili . . the record as of June 13 , 2007. CONCLUSION On the basis of this record, the proposed amendments are consistent with the criteria of Sections 7.070, 8.030 and 12.030 of the Springfield Development Code. This general finding is supported by the specific findings offact and conclusions in the attached staff report and attached hereto. . ORDER It is ORDERED by the Planning Commission of Springfield that approval of Case Number LRP2007, 00013 and ZON2007,OOO 12, be GRANTED and a RECOMMENDATION for approval forwarded to the , , Springfield City Council. This ORDER-was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission on June 19th, 2007. ' , Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTACHMENT 4-1